Case law

Lombard Public Facilities Corp. v. Department of Revenue

378 Ill. App. 3d 921 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 2008

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101.1 (West 2000)). … The burden to prove entitlement to the governmental body exemption was on LPFC, and it did not clearly establish that section 2 — 5(11) of the Retailers’ Tax Act applies to a corporate entity created by a governmental body

Vickery v. Jones

856 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 1994

Qualified Immunity. … The state officials assert that this Court should dismiss plaintiffs claim for compensatory and punitive damages on qualified immunity grounds because the plaintiff cannot establish the existence of a clearly established

Lake Point Tower Garage Ass'n v. Property Tax Appeal Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 2004

The defendant municipality argued that section 3-106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) applied: "Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an … Springfield argued that the school was immune from the suit based on section 3-106.

Brown v. Chicago Board of Education

973 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2013

The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two parts: (1) whether the facts alleged amount to a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the alleged violation was clearly established at the time of the conduct. … Here, Brown’s individual-capacity claim against Mason fails because the alleged violation was not clearly established.

Mockbee v. Humphrey Manlift Company

2012 IL App (1st) 93189 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 18, 2012

While the plaintiffs challenge that each defendant qualifies for immunity under section 5(a), the plaintiffs do not assert that the statutory immunity claim is not properly before this court. See Murphy v. … The plaintiffs contend, “Section 5(a)’s construction requires particular showings in order to gain immunity, and Harris clearly has not met this burden.”

ESM Development Corp. v. Dawson

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 6, 2003

If not, and if the claims are therefore actually legal in nature, then the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … This hotel was developed under the understanding that it, and thus the plaintiffs, qualified for enterprise zone benefits.

Lavery v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

2025 IL 130033 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 18, 2025

The General Assembly subsequently established statutory sovereign immunity by enacting the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (745 ILCS 5/0.01 et seq. … As we established above, the Confidentiality Act does not contain an express waiver of statutory sovereign immunity.

Reese v. May

955 F. Supp. 869 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 20, 1996

immunized from punitive damages liability under § 2-102, and (2) public employees who qualified as public officials under the common law rules were entitled to complete immunity against both compensatory and punitive damages … Clearly, these two causes of action require different showings.

Moore v. Moyle

405 Ill. 555 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1950

The decisions in the Parks and the Chicago Lying-In Hospital cases clearly extend the immunity to all funds held in trust for the charitable purposes of the charity, but in no case has the question of whether nontrust funds … Appellee cites many cases from other jurisdictions to support its contention that* the procuring of liability insurance or the existence of nontrust fund assets does not waive or qualify the immunity of a charitable corporation

Goetz v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILL.

699 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2010

In addition, the Court denied the Defendants’ request for qualified immunity. II. … Qualified Immunity Renfrow and Mayor Davlin have invoked qualified immunity, and the Court must determine whether they enjoy qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Estrada v. Hills

401 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 8, 1975

If the actions were beyond this boundary, clearly the officer is not immune. But does immunity automatically attach if the official was acting within the outer perimeter of his authority? … Defendants Waner, Miller, Ice and Worsek have submitted affidavits which they claim establish their immunity.

Doe v. Kane Cnty.

308 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2018

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " D.C. v. … When assessing the clearly established prong of qualified immunity "the inquiry is aimed at determining whether a reasonable person in the officer's position would have understood his actions to be against the law at the

Defend v. Lascelles

149 Ill. App. 3d 630 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 1986

On the other hand, where only a qualified privilege is granted based upon a lesser concern for the freedom of the speaker, the person making the statement is immune from liability unless the privilege is abused or some element … The law thus clearly allows for an absolute privilege where there exists a significant interest in protecting the type of speech involved.

Hall v. City of Chicago

989 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 2013

Qualified Immunity The Defendant Officers argue that they are protected by qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Bianchi v. McQueen

2016 IL App (2d) 150646 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 14, 2016

The term includes the estate or personal representative of an employee.” 5 ILCS 350/1(b) (West 2014). ¶ 35 The record clearly establishes that on September 18, 2009, Judge Graham appointed McQueen … Plaintiffs respond that their complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish malice because the facts clearly establish that defendants’ intent was not to seek justice.

McCall-Bey v. Kirner

233 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 26, 2002

Qualified immunity shields those government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As a preliminary matter, because the defense of qualified immunity only applies to officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, a defendant claiming qualified immunity “must demonstrate objective circumstances

Hartnett v. Schmit

501 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1980

The only defense raised by defendants is that of qualified immunity. … The Court is mindful of the fact that summary judgment should rarely be granted in cases where qualified immunity is raised as a defense to a civil rights claim.

Gray v. Taylor

714 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ asserted defense of qualified immunity is groundless. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Anderson v. Cornejo

284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2003

It was held that “violation of an administrative rule or regulation does not preclude applying qualified immunity where the pertinent constitutional law is not clearly established.” Id. at 265-66 (citing Davis v. … Plaintiffs presently argue that Anderson IV’s qualified immunity holding as to when the some level of suspicion standard for standard patdown searches was clearly established, see 199 F.R.D. at 256-57 , should be reconsidered

Jinkins v. Lee

209 Ill. 2d 320 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 18, 2004

The Court of Claims Act establishes such a court to serve as a forum for actions against the state. 705 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002). … Here, the complaint is clearly directed to the alleged failure of Dr. Lee and Medlin to abide by their respective standards of care in their evaluation of George.